From the MailOnline comments, this is either a joke or an extraordinary coincidence:

It is terrible that these people are being discriminated against on the basis of their religion. Being a frequent visitor to Bath I have seen with my own eyes how these gracious men and women have healed others. Perhaps Ms Stevens would do well to allow them to lay hands on her. It brings together the most healing, peaceful aspects of reiki and prayer. Maybe then she will open her mind more to the Lord.

- Trystan Lewis Swale, Cheltenham, UK, 2/2/2012 20:20

Trystan Swale is (was?) Hayley Stevens' co-host on the Righteous Indignation podcast.

My recent post Burnee links for Friday

I couldn't resist reposting this, from the PodCastle discussion forum:

Great story, and an even greater narrator.

If Morgan Freeman's the voice of God, I reckon Paul Jenkins a shoe-in for the other guy. The man could fascinate with a laundry list.

Thanks, Balu.

My recent post Burnee links for Thursday

Thanks for those links — I'll check them out (though I'm aware that Skeptiko's Alex Tsakiris, despite the name of his podcast, is a woo).

My recent post Storm in a teacup at Unbelievable?

No, it didn't. But Mark did ask Justin whether his wife, in her role as a pastor, discussed masturbation and pornography with the men in her church. Justin replied that she didn't, but there were male elders in the church who would do so — and he asked Mark if he discussed such matters with the women of his church. To which Mark responded no, but that there were women leaders who would. So as far as I can see his objections to women pastors amount to nothing more than Old Testament misogyny.

"You have misunderstood the counter."

Maybe I have. But this chapter is in a book titled Evidence for God — 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science. If Licona is specifically responding to such a narrow slice of the skeptical viewpoint I would have to question his editorial priorities. However, I haven't finished the book; there may be other aspects I've yet to encounter.

It seems you're attempting to shift the burden of proof from its default position. I'm not claiming that God is not "omnipotent, omniscient, exists self-existently, is eternal, is morally perfect, and so forth." Craig is claiming these attributes for his God. In my post I make no claims at all about God. I do make claims about Craig — that he has no epistemic basis for his claims, which — as quoted — result in an incoherent and therefore unknowable God. But whether I think his claims are correct or not isn't relevant to my point, which is that his claims in this respect are at odds with his playing the mystery card with regard to God's reasons for "permitting the suffering in the world". There is no requirement on me to explain why God couldn't have reasons for permitting suffering:

Charlie and Walter are having a conversation, when up walks George wearing his Special Constable's uniform. Without warning George punches Charlie on the nose.

"What did you do that for?" Charlie gasps, reeling, blood pouring down his face. George says nothing, turns on his heels and walks off. "Hey!" cries Charlie, reaching into his pocket for a tissue. "Come back here and explain yourself!" But George has gone. Charlie turns his blood-soaked face to Walter. "What did he do that for?"

"I dunno," says Walter, "but I expect he had a reason."

"The hell he did!" Charlie dabs his face with the tissue. "If he did have a reason, it better be a damn good one, or there'll be hell to pay!"

"No," says Walter. "Unless you can show that it's impossible or highly improbable for George to have a morally sufficient reason to punch you on the nose, you'll just have to accept it."

"The hell I will! If he has a good reason then he must come and tell me what it is!"

"No," Walter repeats. "It's up to you to prove he doesn't — and can't — have a good reason—"

Walter ducks, narrowly evading Charlie's fist...

My recent post Circular hallucinations are circular

It gets worse — Craig denies animal suffering (he did so in his debate with Stephen Law, and I've heard him do it again since). PZ Myers has pointed out that Craig is simply wrong about animal suffering.

My recent post Circular hallucinations are circular

To quote Bart Ehrman: "If God wrote a book, wouldn't you want to read it?" The Christians say he did write a book (or at least divinely inspire one). If he wanted it to be a clear message to humanity, methinks he could have made it ... less ambiguous.

My recent post Burnee links for Thursday

Indeed they are, and indeed he does. He usually has five arguments in any debate:

1. Kalām cosmological argument
2. Argument from the existence of objective moral values and duties
3. Fine-tuning argument
4. Resurrection of Jesus
5. Witness of the Holy Spirit

However, in his debate with Stephen Law (which I attended) he did not use numbers 3 and 5.

My recent post Burnee links for Thursday

I've nothing against metaphor, but the use of metaphor in religious discourse is fraught with pot-holes. Theologians seem unwilling or unable to distinguish the different meanings of the words they use, and consequently make false equivalences. Daniel Dennett coined the term "deepities" for this type of fallacy:

http://youtu.be/D_9w8JougLQ